Contents

There are competing theories about the origins of the Anglo-Saxon futhorc. One theory proposes that it was developed in Frisia and from there spread later to England. Another holds that runes were first introduced to England from Scandinavia where the futhorc was modified and then exported to Frisia. Both theories have their inherent weaknesses, and a definitive answer may come from further archaeological evidence.

The early futhorc was identical to the Elder Futhark, except for the split of ᚨa into three variants ᚪāc, ᚫæsc and ᚩōs, resulting in 26 runes. This was necessary to account for the new phoneme produced by the Ingvaeonic split of allophones of long and short a. The earliest ᚩōs rune is found on the 5th-century Undley bracteate. ᚪāc was introduced later, in the 6th century. The double-barred ᚻhægl characteristic of continental inscriptions is first attested as late as 698, on St Cuthbert's coffin; before that, the single-barred Scandinavian variant was used.

In England the futhorc expanded. Runic writing in England became closely associated with the Latin scriptoria from the time of Anglo-Saxon Christianization in the 7th century. The futhorc started to be replaced by the Latin alphabet from around the 7th century, but it was still sometimes used up until the 10th or 11th century. In some cases, texts would be written in the Latin alphabet, and þorn and ƿynn came to be used as extensions of the Latin alphabet. By the Norman Conquest of 1066, it was very rare and disappeared altogether shortly thereafter. From at least five centuries of use, fewer than 200 artefacts bearing futhorc inscriptions have survived.

The letter sequence and letter inventory of futhorc, along with the actual sounds made by those letters could vary depending on location and time. That being so, an authentic and unified list of runes is not possible.

The sequence of runes given above comes from the Anglo-Saxon rune poem (Cotton Otho B.x.165). The first 24 of these runes directly continue the elder futhark letters, and do not deviate in sequence (though ᛞ and ᛟ often swap places in both elder futhark and futhorc rune-rows). The next 5 runes represent additional vowels (a, æ, y, io, ea), comparable to the five forfeda of the ogham alphabet.

While the rune poem and some manuscripts present ᛡ as "ior", and ᛄ as "ger", epigraphically both are variants of ger. R. I. Page designated ior a pseudo-rune.[4]

The runes above (in no particular order) were not included in the rune poem. Calc appears in manuscripts, and epigraphically on the Ruthwell Cross, the Bramham Moor Ring, the Kingmoor Ring, and elsewhere. Gar appears in manuscripts, and epigraphically on the Ruthwell Cross and probably on the Bewcastle Cross.[5] The unnamed ᛤ rune only appears on the Ruthwell Cross, where it seems to take calc's place as /k/ where that consonant is followed by a secondary fronted vowel. Cweorð and stan only appear in manuscripts. The unnamed ę rune only appears on the Baconsthorpe Grip. The unnamed ᶖ rune only appears on the Sedgeford Handle.

There is little doubt that calc and gar are modified forms of cen and gyfu, and that they were invented to address the ambiguity which arose from /k/ and /g/ spawning palatalized offshoots.[6] R. I. Page designated cweorð and stan pseudo-runes, noting their apparent pointlessness, and speculating that cweorð was invented merely to give futhorc an equivalent to Q.[7] The ę rune is likely a local innovation, possibly representing an unstressed vowel, and may derive its shape from ᛠ.[8] The unnamed ᶖ rune is found in a personal name (bᶖrnferþ), where it stands for a vowel or diphthong. Anglo-Saxon expert Gaby Waxenberger speculates that ᶖ may not be a true rune, but rather a bindrune of ᛁ and ᚩ, or the result of a mistake.[9]

A rune in Old English could be called a "rúnstæf" ("mystery letter" or "whisper letter"), or simply "rúne".

Futhorc inscriptions hold diverse styles and contents. Ocher has been detected on at least one English runestone, implying its runes were once painted. Bind runes are not uncommon in futhorc (relative to its small corpus), and were seemingly used most often to ensure the runes would fit in a limited space.[10] Futhorc logography is attested to in a few manuscripts. This was done by having a rune stand for its name, or a similar sounding word. In the sole extant manuscript of the poem Beowulf, the ēðel rune was used as a logogram for the word ēðel (meaning "homeland", or "estate").[11] Both the Hackness Stone and Codex Vindobonensis 795 attest to futhorc Cipher runes.[12] In one manuscript (Corpus Christi College, MS 041) a writer seems to have used futhorc runes as Roman numerals, writing what looks like ᛉᛁᛁ⁊ᛉᛉᛉ, which may mean 12&30.[13]

There is limited evidence for futhorc rune magic. The Buckland Spear and Holborough Spear share similar symbols which have been interpreted as stylized tir runes, perhaps akin to the victory runes spoken of in Norse myth.[14] The alu sequence seems to appear on an urn found at Spong Hill in cryptic spiegelrunes. Furthermore, futhorc rings have been found with what appear to be enchanted inscriptions for the stanching of blood.[15]

Futhorc series on the Seax of Beagnoth (9th century). The series has 28 runes, omitting io. The shapes of j, s, d, œ and y deviate from the standard forms shown above; eo appears mirrored.

The Old English and Old Frisian Runic Inscriptions database project at the Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany aims at collecting the genuine corpus of Old English inscriptions containing more than two runes in its paper edition, while the electronic edition aims at including both genuine and doubtful inscriptions down to single-rune inscriptions.

Runic finds in England cluster along the east coast with a few finds scattered further inland in Southern England. Frisian finds cluster in West Frisia. Looijenga (1997) lists 23 English (including two 7th-century Christian inscriptions) and 21 Frisian inscriptions predating the 9th century.

Odenstedt, Bengt, On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script, Uppsala (1990), ISBN91-85352-20-9; chapter 20: 'The position of continental and Anglo-Frisian runic forms in the history of the older futhark '